Faculty
Year of Publication
Keyword
Publication Type
Abstract
Medication errors remain a major worldwide concern within healthcare systems, as they are strongly linked to adverse drug events (ADEs), extended hospitalisation, increased financial burden, and worsened patient outcomes. In Nigeria, such errors are particularly common, with research showing discrepancy rates of 40–60% during patient admission and discharge. These inconsistencies lead to ADEs in about 10–20% of cases and contribute to avoidable readmissions and even death. This study was conducted to assess how a pharmacist-driven medication reconciliation service influences the frequency and seriousness of medication errors during patient
transitions at UBTH. A total of 348 patients participated and were assigned to either an intervention group (which received pharmacist-led reconciliation) or a control group (which received routine
care). The demographic variables reviewed included age, gender, educational background, marital status, and length of hospital stay. Participants were fairly evenly distributed across both groups,
allowing for reliable comparison. Most respondents were between 31 and 45 years old (39.7%), with females making up 54%. Approximately two-thirds of the participants had either secondary
or tertiary education, while 56.6% were married. Nearly half (49.7%) had been hospitalised for fewer than five days. The study further compared the incidence of medication errors documented
in medication charts and discharge summaries between the two groups. The findings showed a striking difference: only 24 individuals (13.7%) in the intervention group experienced medication
errors, compared with 116 individuals (67.1%) in the control group. In fact, 86.3% of the intervention group had no errors at all, demonstrating the clear benefits of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation. With a p-value of p < 0.001, the null hypothesis—which proposed that there would be no significant difference in error rates between both groups—is rejected. This confirms a statistically significant reduction in medication errors among patients who received pharmacist-driven reconciliation. In conclusion, the results strongly indicate that pharmacist-led medication reconciliation greatly minimizes medication errors in the clinical setting. Patients
exposed to this structured intervention experienced far fewer discrepancies than those receiving standard care. The types of errors reduced included omissions, duplications, wrong dosages, incorrect frequency of administration, potential drug interactions, and documentation mistakes all of which are known contributors to ADEs and negative patient outcomes. The study also acknowledges its limitations and offers relevant recommendations.
transitions at UBTH. A total of 348 patients participated and were assigned to either an intervention group (which received pharmacist-led reconciliation) or a control group (which received routine
care). The demographic variables reviewed included age, gender, educational background, marital status, and length of hospital stay. Participants were fairly evenly distributed across both groups,
allowing for reliable comparison. Most respondents were between 31 and 45 years old (39.7%), with females making up 54%. Approximately two-thirds of the participants had either secondary
or tertiary education, while 56.6% were married. Nearly half (49.7%) had been hospitalised for fewer than five days. The study further compared the incidence of medication errors documented
in medication charts and discharge summaries between the two groups. The findings showed a striking difference: only 24 individuals (13.7%) in the intervention group experienced medication
errors, compared with 116 individuals (67.1%) in the control group. In fact, 86.3% of the intervention group had no errors at all, demonstrating the clear benefits of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation. With a p-value of p < 0.001, the null hypothesis—which proposed that there would be no significant difference in error rates between both groups—is rejected. This confirms a statistically significant reduction in medication errors among patients who received pharmacist-driven reconciliation. In conclusion, the results strongly indicate that pharmacist-led medication reconciliation greatly minimizes medication errors in the clinical setting. Patients
exposed to this structured intervention experienced far fewer discrepancies than those receiving standard care. The types of errors reduced included omissions, duplications, wrong dosages, incorrect frequency of administration, potential drug interactions, and documentation mistakes all of which are known contributors to ADEs and negative patient outcomes. The study also acknowledges its limitations and offers relevant recommendations.
Supervisor(s)
co-supervisor